0 notifications total

Feed detail update

Promote this post to reach people who matter to you.
Boost
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link
Tough men/boys don't cry, but sadly, Genghis Khan did.

"Boys don’t cry" is a social construct rooted in Industrialisation and Victorian morality.

Before that, men were allowed to express emotions. Warriors cried, monks cried, philosophers cried, even kings cried.

Almost all people cry, and when we create ancient Hindu/Muslim/Christian warrior imagery, we unknowingly project Victorian morality in our movies or serials, which is not true. We imagine them as emotionless macho heroes, but real history shows that even the strongest men had tears.

The brutal Genghis Khan used to cry, and so did all other brutal kings of the ancient era.

Crying was never considered weakness in ancient times. It was human, not gendered.

So, when did men stop crying, and why?

It happened when emotions became a threat to authority and discipline.

The British reshaped social norms to cultivate obedient, disciplined workers for the industrial economy, discouraging emotional expression. People accepted this because it offered social mobility beyond rigid caste and communal hierarchies, and over time, emotional suppression became normalized.

They promoted the idea that real men don’t cry, real men don’t feel, and real men only obey. This was not culture, this was conditioning.

Because honestly, who cares about the truth, because history is just stories? But that is the biggest lie.

History is not story, history has method, history has science.

History is not just what happened — it is how we understand what happened.

History has the power to shape identity and influence each aspect of your life — how you think, how you behave, how you see yourself, and what you believe is possible.

Yet many still believe that history is only about wars and kings — whose lives are simplified to mere battle narratives — while the entire society that shaped history remains invisible.

They forget about farmers, women, philosophers, rebels, workers, teachers, and the millions of unnamed people who actually created society, and that's why they fall for fake historical narratives.
1,687 impressions
View analytics


View Jatin Sheth’s graphic link

Jatin Sheth • 1st

GMAT coach
Of course real men cry! Even non-biological men do...

https://youtu.be/lfqIn3r4_3Q?si=4NGpM0BmTsThC6_i&t=50s
View Ravinder Bhan’s graphic link

Ravinder Bhan • 1st

Management Consultant | 35 Yrs Corporate | Across 6 countries | CEO Turned Farmer | Curating Memorable Experiences| Building Your Life Style Assets | Pro bono advisor to the needy employees and entrepreneurs|
(edited)
Jatin Sheth If you are implying that you are smart, then I need to let you know that you are doing nothing but cheap sarcasm. It may satisfy your ego but it doesn’t change anything. Country is moving ahead at a fast pace and you will be left behind sucking your thumb and wondering what non biological human being means.
Take care
View Jatin Sheth’s graphic link

Jatin Sheth • 1st

GMAT coach
Ravinder B. , I don't need to imply anything. If you can't handle differing views to your own, then maybe you shouldn't be in social media - it could affect your physical health too.
View Jatin Sheth’s graphic link

Jatin Sheth • 1st

GMAT coach
Ravinder B. , if you can't handle sarcasm (even though it's not directed at you), that's not my problem - it's yours. So just learn how to handle it, because it takes a lot of maturity to handle sarcasm than it does to become personally offensive.

Of course, if you still can't handle it, feel free to block me.
View Ravinder Bhan’s graphic link

Ravinder Bhan • 1st

Management Consultant | 35 Yrs Corporate | Across 6 countries | CEO Turned Farmer | Curating Memorable Experiences| Building Your Life Style Assets | Pro bono advisor to the needy employees and entrepreneurs|
(edited)
Jatin Sheth
Boss.... थोड़ा तो सोँच के लिखा करो
What is there for me to HANLDLE?? (you used that term wrongly twice)
I have no problem with your being sarcastic. I was just trying to educate you on good manners. But if that is not your appetite, so be it.
BTW, I don't block anyone because of what they write or think. And if I ever decide to block someone - I don't wait for their permission.
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
(edited)
Jatin Sheth Ravinder Bhan Saroj Sahu

We can mock PM of India and it's a part of the free speech under the Indian constitution. If we're comfortable with mocking Trump why aren't we comfortable with mocking Modi is the real question ?

If the world isn't able to harm Trump's reputation by mocking then how can Modi's reputation be harmed by mocking?
View Jatin Sheth’s graphic link

Jatin Sheth • 1st

GMAT coach
Ravinder B. , you certainly had a problem with sarcasm. That's why you thought you could "educate" me. Why are you so keen to educate others? What makes you think you are qualified to do so?
View Joe Christopher’s graphic link

Joe Christopher • 1st

Global Business Strategist (Advisory Role) || Empowering High-Net-Worth Clients to Internationalize || Geopolitical & Policy Expertise
Yash, there is a lot one could write about the great khan and his worthy successors. He was so ahead of his times. A personal hero of mine when it came to promoting meritocracy and governance
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
Joe Christopher this post isn't about Genghis Khan's greatness but this post is about Indian men who don't unite because they learn being emotional/vulnerable means less cruel or weak which is a lie historically. I mean they're copying the imaginary version of Kings to project themselves as a strong one.
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
Joe Christopher What about dictators like Hitler and Stalin, who carefully maintained a strong public image by suppressing any display of vulnerability, essentially living a double life? I don’t believe the concept of an empire is inherently good — it goes against the principle of equality. Although these regimes were eventually discredited or defeated within a few decades, they had already caused significant damage. We're discussing this because lots of people made fools out of the public already by appearing strong.
View Ravinder Bhan’s graphic link

Ravinder Bhan • 1st

Management Consultant | 35 Yrs Corporate | Across 6 countries | CEO Turned Farmer | Curating Memorable Experiences| Building Your Life Style Assets | Pro bono advisor to the needy employees and entrepreneurs|
If real men don’t cry - they are not men, they are stones carved in human shape.
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
Ravinder Bhan Thanks. Genghis Khan and other cruel people showed that even the most ruthless did not shy away from crying in history because it was socially acceptable. People who avoid crying or refuse to accept vulnerability are not tough but products of the British colonial factory worker mindset.

By distorting history, we can distort life choices and perspectives for entire generations or a country.
View Danish Siddique’s graphic link

Danish Siddique • 1st

Founder — Danish Siddique Speaks (80K+ YouTube Community) | Content Writer & Ghostwriter | Impactful Storyteller | Educating Youth & Challenging India’s Social Barriers
(edited)
What I mean is simple when someone is truly human they show emotions. But when society conditions them to shut down their feelings, they turn into emotionless robots. And that is exactly how many men are becoming toxic day by day by being forced to act like robots instead of humans.

To live a healthy life, we should not follow what is socially accepted. We should follow what is naturally accepted the way we were born. That is how truly wise people live.
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
Danish Siddique Thanks. Genghis Khan and other cruel people showed that even the most ruthless did not shy away from crying in history because it was socially acceptable. People who avoid crying or refuse to accept vulnerability are not tough but products of the British colonial factory worker mindset.

By distorting history, we can distort life choices and perspectives for entire generations or a country.
View Sharaleepa Majumder’s graphic link

Sharaleepa Majumder • 1st

Director & Co-founder aka CEO @DATs’ERA|| Project - Lead “MEDHABI”|| ™ Growth Architect|| Creative strategist™|| Cognito-Marketing Expert ™|| Strategic Executive backed by Data and Intutive Insights™||
Superb... Emotions is wat keeps us alive
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
Sharaleepa Majumder Thanks. Genghis Khan and other cruel people showed that even the most ruthless did not shy away from crying in history because it was socially acceptable.

People who avoid crying or refuse to accept vulnerability are not tough but products of the British colonial factory worker mindset.

By distorting history, we can distort life choices and perspectives for entire generations or a country.
View Sumit Singla (he/him/they)’s graphic link

Sumit Singla (he/him/they) • Following

I help leaders make better people decisions and get bigger business results. People & Culture Consultant | Part-time HR Head | On a mission to give away 10,000 books (211/10,000 done)
I'd also like to add here that the 'brutal' bit about Genghis Khan is largely a Western construct. The bits about his erm... sexual conquests are largely made up and he seems to have been an excellent diplomat and a masterful ruler.

Having worked in Mongolia for about a year, I got to know a lot more about him and his legacy. Apparently, he refused to have his image on coins or on paintings, preserved the cultures of places he conquered, and was a just ruler. (Technically, there's no reason why Alexander is 'The Great' and Genghis Khan is 'brutal' except the difference in their skin colour.)

P.S. Also, sometimes people's religious bigotry plays a part here. In Mongolian, 'khan' means great warrior and isn't a Muslim name.
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
Sumit Singla (he/him/they) thanks for sharing new information btw this post isn't about Genghis Khan's greatness but this post is about Indian men who don't unite because they learn being emotional/vulnerable means less cruel or weak which is a lie historically. I mean they're copying the imaginary version of Kings to project themselves as a strong one.
View Mrinal Bisht’s graphic link

Mrinal Bisht • 2nd

Associate Consultant - Recruitment | HR Professional (Posts and Opinions are Personal)
Tough men cried in tough times -
When Genghis 1st wife got kidnapped.
Napoleon said goodby to his wife and son for the final time before going to battle.
Roman warriors who saw Rome burning under Emperor Nero.
Salves who won their freedom.
Other such examples.
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
Mrinal Bisht Thanks. Genghis Khan and other cruel people showed that even the most ruthless did not shy away from crying in history because it was socially acceptable. People who avoid crying or refuse to accept vulnerability are not tough but products of the British colonial factory worker mindset.

By distorting history, we can distort life choices and perspectives for entire generations or a country.
View Moumita Biswas’ graphic link

Moumita Biswas • Following

🎤 LinkedIn Top Voice 2025 by Business Talkz (7th in India) 👍 460K+ impressions 🖋️ Personal branding expert for CEOs/Founders/Coaches 🧠 Turning messy ideas to creative blogs/websites 🗞️ Sign-up for my newsletter
There’s nothing wrong in crying or feeling drained once in a while Yash Pratap
View Yash Pratap’s graphic link

Yash Pratap Author

Web Dev, System Design, AI
Moumita Biswas Thanks. Genghis Khan and other cruel people showed that even the most ruthless did not shy away from crying in history because it was socially acceptable. People who avoid crying or refuse to accept vulnerability are not tough but products of the British colonial factory worker mindset.

By distorting history, we can distort life choices and perspectives for entire generations or a country.
View Sharma RS’ graphic link

Sharma RS • 1st

A Visionary & Committed Leader (BJP & NDA Supporter) || ED, Manas Foundation (NGO) || In Favour of Recreation of Small States & UT on the Basis of States Reorganisation Commission Act of 1956 throughout India.
Historically, the idea that "men don't cry" is a social construct rooted in evolving norms. Western cultures, particularly influenced by industrialization and colonialism, emphasized stoicism and emotional restraint as markers of masculinity, often conditioned rather than innate .
View Saroj Sahu’s graphic link

Saroj Sahu • 2nd

CEO at GOD Trust Academy
(edited)
Courageously reframed, Yash Pratap,
 Somewhere along the march of time, strength was mistaken for silence. We inherited a mythology where men were sculpted without tears, without softness, and without permission to feel. But the ancient world tells a different story. Warriors wept. Kings wept. Saints wept. Tears were not betrayal—they were proof of breath.
 The tragedy is not that boys stopped crying. The tragedy is that they were taught to be ashamed when they did. Emotional suppression was not culture. It was strategy. It shaped workers who obeyed instead of questioned, soldiers who followed instead of resisted, and societies that endured discipline instead of dignity. Silence was engineered, not born.
 The irony is sharp: we glorify ancestors while deleting their humanity. We invent statues with stone faces and call it strength, forgetting that real strength was built from hearts that felt deeply and carried suffering without denial.
Reclaiming emotion is cultural restoration. It is rebellion against conditioning that shrinks men into machines. It is the return of the soul into strength.
 History isn’t stories of kings. It is the memory of humanity. And nothing is more human than tears.
 SarojSahuComments